Circuit Judge Simon James
(Honorary Recorder)
Canterbury Crown Court
Chaucer Road
Canterbury
Kent CT1 1ZA
HHJ.Simon.James@ejudiciary.net
HHJ James sitting in the Crown Court at Canterbury for trial T20190059 was so determined that a jury find the unrepresented defendant guilty that he consulted privately in chambers with prosecuting counsel Mr Patrick Dennis, then of 2 Dr Johnson’s Buildings, where it was agreed that the judge would lie to the jury in summing up the case.
The defendant was seriously assaulted on the street. His assailant (he was never arrested) was asked to come into the police station about a month later where he was told by a DC Eastwood that he would face no action over the assault if he in return produced a false statement that would place the defendant at an address during a specific time.
Cell site analysis was used in order to try to place the defendant's phone within that vicinity (the analysis placed one of the defendant's phones somewhere in the eastern half of the town of Folkestone). Part of the defendant's case was that he had two phones, not one. He had given one to his partner, who had just moved in to her new home, for use as an internet hub. Smart phones have a 'hotspot' facility.
The defendant having two phones was a problem for the police and the prosecution because they didn't have that second phone, it had been given away by the time the defendant was arrested some months later, and so no cell site analysis could be carried out. The police and the prosecution knew that the defendant had two phones because on the day he was assaulted, he was attended by two police officers that noted two mobile phones. See below:
After arrest, the defendant was interviewed and regarding the defendant having two mobile phones, the police interview went like this:
DS Poulter: So obviously you’ve spoken about the time you were assaulted.
Defendant: Yes.
DS Poulter: And some police came to help you.
Defendant: No I can’t remember that.
DS Poulter: Can’t you? Well they found you with two phones.
Defendant: Yeah.
DC Eastwood the officer in the case gave evidence on oath during trial to the effect that she knew the existence of the second phone. See the excerpt from the transcript below:
With the evidence all in, the judge heard evidence from both the defence and the prosecution that the defendant definitely had two mobile phones during the indictment period (the jury couldn't hear a thing because of all the portable fan units running). DC Eastwood even addressed the judge directly confirming the existence of the two moblie phones.
The court adjourned before summing up. When the court was back in session but before the jury was asked back in, Judge Simon James told the defendant that he was going to sum up to the jury that it is the defendant's case that he had two mobile phones and that it is the prosecution's case that he had just one adding that the jury must consider as to whether the defendant had lied about the second phone. Worried that a jury would return not guilty verdicts if the defendant couldn't be placed at the time and place that the alleged breach took place, Judge James proceeded to lie to the jury as follows:
“Now, in interview there is no doubt that [the defendant] was asked how many phones he had and he was adamant he had only one phone” (13G of the transcript).
“Now the prosecution suggest that there had been a change of his evidence in saying well he told the police ‘I only had one phone’ and he told you he had two and the prosecution say that the change in evidence adds weight to the evidence against him because they suggest the only reasonable conclusion to be reached from this change of stance is that he’s made up the second phone since his interview in a vain attempt to try and explain the incriminating cell site evidence” (14B of the transcript).
“in interview you’ve seen that he said he only had one phone. Now, again, that is said by the prosecution to be a deliberate lie and either he had two phones why was he saying he only had one or, if he didn’t in reality have two phones, has he made it up and tailored his account to try to explain away the subsequently obtained cell site evidence” (21A of the transcript).
“what the prosecution is saying when he when he was presented with the cell site evidence, when he realised that what that showed, that is when he’s come up with the theory about having a second phone” (21G of the transcript).
Four times Judge James lied to the jury about the evidence during summing up in order for the judge to obtain guilty verdicts and imprison the defendant for three years. Judge James is now honarary recorder in Kent. He is the top circuit judge for the Crown Court sitting at Canterbury and Maidstone. Judge James is dangerous. He has lied to the jury to impose a significant prison sentence as evidenced here and so if you are unfortunate enough to have Judge James preside over your case, make an application to the judge to recuse himself on the evidence given here.
After the jury returned guilty verdicts and on the lead up to sentencing the defendant to three years in prison, Judge James gave his sentencing remarks that included:
“It is obvious you had numerous internet enabled devices which you have kept from the police, including at least one further smartphone” (2G of the transcript)
Upon release from prison, the defendant collected evidence in the form of bank statements, text messages, train tickets etc to prove that he was not at the time and place of the alleged offence but rather that he was 180 miles away. This evidence was given to Kent Police for consideration and the false witness statement investigated by DS Goodban. He concluded:
"There is some compelling evidence to identify that you were not within the address identified for periods of time. Some of this contradicts that of the suggestion that you were at the address during the period inferred by Dylan’s statement."
It has been reported by LM that on 31 October 2024, he received a telephone call from a Kent Police officer at Canterbury Police Station. Someone had reported him for harassment. LM was invited to attend a voluntary interview at the police station on 8 November 2024. The 'victim' was no other than Judge Simon James. He had made a witness statement to the Victim Crime Team that in July 2024 LM had brought awareness of this article by placing QR codes around the Law courts at Canterbury. LM was accused by the judge/the police of 'harassment without violence' with 'attempted defamation' (whatever that is).
LM attended the voluntary interview and answered 'no comment' throughout and the matter was dropped. LM has since reported Judge James to the police for harassment in that the judge made false accusations against LM and LM also advised the police to consider the matter of the judge wasting police time. Judges in their judicial capacity are immune from prosecution and the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office exists only to make believe that their is an effective system in place. Unless an otherwise hard working honest judge has so much as a microsleep at the end of a long trial then the JCIO won't take any action. Such judges having a microsleep will usually be dismissed but generally anything else is not considered by the JCIO. But Judge James making false allegations against LM doesn't enjoy the same immunity, this he did outside of his judicial capacity.
Significant time had ellapsed from Judge James becoming aware of this article and LM's voluntary interview. July to November. So it is safe to say that Judge James didn't immediately run straight to the Victim Crime Unit at Canterbury Police Station. More likely, he'd have consulted with many of his lawyer friends about what to do with LM. Bring him in for contempt of court? Take out an injunction? But there were no viable options, LM has done nothing wrong. Any right minded judge exposed to have lied to a jury might have gone cap in hand to the Lady Chief Justice and said 'hey, I've messed up, here's my letter of resignation'. But not Judge James.
Scandalising the judiciary or judges was a common law offence. In March 2012, the Attorney General of Northern Ireland was to bring a prosecution against an MP for comments he made about a High Court judge. The prosecution was abandoned but Parliament didn't take kindly to this threat to free speech and repealed the common law offence:
"Scandalising the judiciary (also referred to as scandalising the court or scandalising judges) is abolished as a form of contempt of court under the common law of England and Wales." Section 33 Crime and Courts Act 2013.
What happens when Kent Police don't have enough evidence to prosecute? Well they make it up of course. On 21 May 2014, LM was arrested on suspicion of possessing indecent images of children. He gave a full interview denying any knowledge of such images. He was interviewed at length, the transcript spanning 75 pages. During that interview, LM admitted to using Pirate Bay to illegally download otherwise legitimate movies, music and software. Illegal only because of copyright infringement. During interview, LM raised the very real possibility of malicious Remote Access Software, also known as Trojan Horses or (incorrectly) simply as viruses.
